Clinically Valuable Quality Control for PET/MRI Systems: Consensus Recommendation From the HYBRID Consortium

Quality control (QC) of medical imaging devices is essential to ensure their proper function and to gain accurate and quantitative results. Therefore, several international bodies have published QC guidelines and recommendations for a wide range of imaging modalities to ensure adequate performance of the systems. Hybrid imaging systems such as positron emission tomography / computed tomography (PET/CT) or PET/ magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI), in particular, present additional challenges caused by differences between the combined modalities. However, despite the increasing use of this hybrid imaging modality in recent years, there are no dedicated QC recommendations for PET/MRI. Therefore, this work aims at collecting information on QC procedures across a European PET/MRI network, presenting quality assurance procedures implemented by PET/MRI vendors and achieving a consensus on PET/MRI QC procedures across imaging centers. Users of PET/MRI systems at partner sites involved in the HYBRID consortium were surveyed about local frequencies of QC procedures for PET/MRI. Although all sites indicated that they perform vendor-specific daily QC procedures, significant variations across the centers were observed for other QC tests and testing frequencies. Likewise, variations in available recommendations and guidelines and the QC procedures implemented by vendors were found. Based on the available information and our clinical expertise within this consortium, we were able to propose a minimum set of PET/MRI QC recommendations including the daily QC, cross-calibration tests and an image quality (IQ) assessment for PET and coil checks and MR image quality tests for MRI. Together with regular checks of the PET–MRI alignment, proper PET/MRI performance can be ensured.

[1]  Victor Chang,et al.  Review and discussion: E-learning for academia and industry , 2016, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[2]  Karen L. Blondeau,et al.  Accuracy testing of dose calibrators , 1985 .

[3]  Hye-Sun An,et al.  Performance measurements of Positron Emission Tomographs using NEMA NU 2-2007 , 2009 .

[4]  Maurizio Conti,et al.  Physics of pure and non-pure positron emitters for PET: a review and a discussion , 2016, EJNMMI Physics.

[5]  Harald H. Quick,et al.  NEMA image quality phantom measurements and attenuation correction in integrated PET/MR hybrid imaging , 2015, EJNMMI Physics.

[6]  H. Zaidi,et al.  Design and performance evaluation of a whole-body Ingenuity TF PET–MRI system , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Paul J Keall,et al.  The integration of MRI in radiation therapy: collaboration of radiographers and radiation therapists , 2017, Journal of medical radiation sciences.

[8]  Suzanne E. Lapi,et al.  Calibration setting numbers for dose calibrators for the PET isotopes (52)Mn, (64)Cu, (76)Br, (86)Y, (89)Zr, (124)I. , 2016, Applied radiation and isotopes : including data, instrumentation and methods for use in agriculture, industry and medicine.

[9]  R. Boellaard Standards for PET Image Acquisition and Quantitative Data Analysis , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  Ivo Rausch,et al.  Unterschiede in Systemeigenschaften, Qualitätsstandards und Berücksichtigung internationaler FDG-PET/CT-Bildgebungsrichtlinien , 2014 .

[11]  Meghal Patel,et al.  Automated Quantitative Analysis of American College of Radiology PET Phantom Images , 2019, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology.

[12]  Aurélie Kas,et al.  14. Quantitative performance of a Signa PET/MR based on the NEMA NU 2-2007 standard , 2016 .

[13]  Mohammad Mehdi Khalighi,et al.  PET Imaging Stability Measurements During Simultaneous Pulsing of Aggressive MR Sequences on the SIGNA PET/MR System , 2018, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[14]  S. Ourselin,et al.  MR Imaging-Guided Partial Volume Correction of PET Data in PET/MR Imaging. , 2016, PET clinics.

[15]  Frank P DiFilippo,et al.  Positron emission tomography-magnetic resonance imaging: technical review. , 2014, Seminars in roentgenology.

[16]  A. Gallamini,et al.  PET-guided clinical trials in Hodgkin lymphoma: to agree or not to agree, that is the reviewer’s question , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[17]  L. Axel,et al.  Quality assurance methods and phantoms for magnetic resonance imaging: report of AAPM nuclear magnetic resonance Task Group No. 1. , 1990, Medical physics.

[18]  Michael S Hofman,et al.  Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment , 2018, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[19]  Eric J. W. Visser,et al.  FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0 , 2014, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[20]  Gaspar Delso,et al.  Design Features and Mutual Compatibility Studies of the Time-of-Flight PET Capable GE SIGNA PET/MR System , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[21]  Thomas Beyer,et al.  Quality control for quantitative multicenter whole-body PET/MR studies: A NEMA image quality phantom study with three current PET/MR systems. , 2015, Medical physics.

[22]  Russell S. Peak,et al.  Part 2: , 2020, Journal of Neural Transmission.

[23]  Roel Wierts,et al.  A comparison of four radionuclide dose calibrators using various radionuclides and measurement geometries clinically used in nuclear medicine. , 2019, Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics.

[24]  In Chan Song,et al.  SiPM-PET with a short optical fiber bundle for simultaneous PET-MR imaging , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  Konstantin Nikolaou,et al.  Whole-Body [18F]-FDG-PET/MRI for Oncology: A Consensus Recommendation , 2019, Nuklearmedizin.

[26]  Arno Villringer,et al.  Physical and organizational provision for installation, regulatory requirements and implementation of a simultaneous hybrid PET/MR-imaging system in an integrated research and clinical setting , 2013, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[27]  Zahi A Fayad,et al.  Optimization of yttrium-90 PET for simultaneous PET/MR imaging: A phantom study. , 2016, Medical physics.

[28]  Adam Espe Hansen,et al.  Cross calibration of the Siemens mMR: easily acquired accurate PET phantom measurements, long term stability and reproducibility , 2015, EJNMMI Physics.

[29]  Ho-Ling Liu,et al.  Quality Assurance of Clinical MRI Scanners Using ACR MRI Phantom: Preliminary Results , 2004, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[30]  John Kornak,et al.  Exploration of PET and MRI radiomic features for decoding breast cancer phenotypes and prognosis , 2018, npj Breast Cancer.

[31]  N. Aide,et al.  Harmonizing SUVs in multicentre trials when using different generation PET systems: prospective validation in non-small cell lung cancer patients , 2013, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[32]  T. Beyer,et al.  Variations in Clinical PET/CT Operations: Results of an International Survey of Active PET/CT Users , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[33]  N. Sobol,et al.  PRELIMINARY RESULTS , 2004 .

[34]  G. Delso,et al.  Performance Measurements of the Siemens mMR Integrated Whole-Body PET/MR Scanner , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[35]  Jim E. Everett,et al.  Technical review , 1995, Comput. Humanit..

[36]  Andrew Mallia Artifacts and Diagnostic Pitfalls in PET/MRI , 2015 .

[37]  H Bergmann,et al.  Variation of system performance, quality control standards and adherence to international FDG-PET/CT imaging guidelines , 2014, Nuklearmedizin.

[38]  Konstantin Nikolaou,et al.  Whole-Body [ 18 F ]-FDG-PET / MRI for Oncology : A Consensus Recommendation * Konsensempfehlungen zur Anwendung der Ganzkörper [ 18 F ]-FDG-PET / MRT in der onkologischen Bildgebung , 2019 .

[39]  Osman Ratib,et al.  Approaches for the optimization of MR protocols in clinical hybrid PET/MRI studies , 2013, Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine.

[40]  Meghal Patel,et al.  Automated quantitative analysis of ACR PET phantom images. , 2019, Journal of nuclear medicine technology.

[41]  W. Oyen,et al.  EANM/EARL FDG-PET/CT accreditation - summary results from the first 200 accredited imaging systems , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[42]  Weili Lin,et al.  Quantitative Comparison of Misregistration in Abdominal and Pelvic Organs Between PET/MRI and PET/CT: Effect of Mode of Acquisition and Type of Sequence on Different Organs. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.